[Discussion] On Parody News Threads

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-05-10 02:58pm

Members of the Senate and Illustrious Comrades,

I've noticed that periodically in the Forums, particularly the News and Politics forum, someone posts a news article that is carefully culled to only give a bit of outrageous information. The link is dressed, as it should be, and the title isn't descriptive of the contents. Except on odd occasions where the poster isn't very good, these news articles of course are Parody humor news articles.

The trick with them is they are carefully disguised by the poster so that unless people mouseover or click the link, they don't know it is necessarily fake and post an outraged response. Normally, I'd say "Serves 'em right" for not checking the source or contemplating the rediculousness of the article.

However, it seems to me to be a very mild form of trolling, in the fishing sense of the world, with the only purpose is to see how many people get fooled by the fake article. Usually, once someone mouses over the link and goes "Hey, it's from the Onion", the thread dies. After all, it might be worth a chuckle, but Onion articles don't exactly sustain frequent conversation, and quickly sink to the bottom with alot of views but no responses.

So I suggest the idea that a rule should be put in place that all parody threads that people know to be parody articles should be marked as such by the poster. That way, posters can post legitimately humorous political article and something of conversation to discuss, while people who are just posting fake articles to see how many people they can trick into making an outraged response are stymied.

What say ye men?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-05-10 03:32pm

Why?

All news articles need to have a link. If you're not going to spend one second to actually look at the link and accept at face value...honestly I have little pity for you.

Also. this is and was moderator choice given that they and the admins determine policy on what does and doesn't go on in the forums. We allow thing of minor nature, such as minor rule change and banning. On something that the N&P moderators have discussed and decided upon is hardly the juridiction of the Senate.

That said, so where is the uproar of the occasional Onion and someone thinking it's real, and then going oops?

Post by **Edi** » 2006-05-10 03:49pm

Those who don't pay enough attention can just take their lumps and shut up, or take their lumps and be made to shut up, as far as I'm concerned. No sympathy for those who get fooled.

Critical thinking is one of those things that is encouraged here, and that includes such things as taking news with an appropriate amount of salt and checking the sources. Those who fail to do so can serve the population further as objects lessons of the "mockery of stupid people" part of the board motto.

Edi

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-05-10 04:05pm

I don't have any sympathy for those fooled by such posts either. I said as much in the original post. However, my point is not to protect them but rather to pose the question whether threads that are purposely designed for no other purpose that to try and fool people are a mild form of trolling. After all, isn't that what trolling is, in essence?

EDIT: The OP was editted to include [Discussion] in the title, since I forgot to include it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-05-10 04:15pm

No. Trolling is purposefully trying to piss people off. Purposefully trying to trick people is more humour. Pulling a harmless 'Gotcha!' is not trolling, and will never be so.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2006-05-10 04:31pm

As someone who's fallen for that trick, all I can say is "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

From then on, I've been careful to check links of those articles that seem questionable.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-05-10 05:46pm

LadyTevar wrote:As someone who's fallen for that trick, all I can say is "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

From then on, I've been careful to check links of those articles that seem questionable.

No, no, it's "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again!"

And I see no reason to highlight satire. I'm sure Swift would have a thing to say about this, if he wasn't, y'know, 6 feet under.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-05-10 05:49pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I don't have any sympathy for those fooled by such posts either. I said as much in the original post. However, my point is not to protect them but rather to pose the question whether threads that are purposely designed for no other purpose that to try and fool people are a mild form of trolling. After all, isn't that what trolling is, in essence?

EDIT: The OP was editted to include [Discussion] in the title, since I forgot to include it.

I don't think it's trolling. A troll tends to post things to incite flames and other things of mass-disruption. The worst a cleverly disguised Onion article does is get the occasional person to go "OMG, u foold me!!11 LOL", a couple of people to post color-commentary, a couple more to remark how much the world sucks that Onion news sounds eerily like regular news, and the rest of us to generally ignore these things as they come up.

And besides, it wouldn't kill people to mouse-over links instead of blindly clicking them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-05-10 07:24pm

There appears to be little or no support for this idea of forcing people to warn about Onion articles in the thread title. Thanks for the suggestion Gil, but I think it's safe to say that this idea won't go anywhere. Besides, no offense but I thought it was a silly idea anyway.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-11 02:56pm

It's also a quick way to "out" the gullible and the knee-jerk reactants. Keep 'em on their toes. I find it amusing when a hysteric falls for it and goes on a "ZOMFG!!! T3h 3\/1|_!!!111" rant thinking that their world has just had the carpet pulled out from under them.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-05-21 03:15pm

I say no disclaimers about "Landover Baptist" or "Onion" articles, I almost wish we had a moratorium on Jack Chick and Fred Phelps....

Post by **Edi** » 2006-05-21 03:30pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I say no disclaimers about "Landover Baptist" or "Onion" articles, I almost wish we had a moratorium on Jack Chick and Fred Phelps....

We do have a moratorium on Jack Chick. His tracts and threads about them are forbidden in both SLAM and Hall of Shame because they only invite useless vulturing. We haven't yet established such a moratorium on Phelps in N&P because the asshat actually does generate news from time to time. Any HoSed Phelps threads on the other hand will get locked as soon as the vultures show signs of gathering, so I don't think there need to be any extra rules about them.

Edi